Docketed this morning - zip of three
| Document Title: | Three Mile Island, Unit 2 Historic and Cultural License Amendment 68 |
| Document Type: | |
| Document Date: |
Saturday, August 31, 2024
TMI Unit 2 Historic and Cultural License Amendment 68
[decomm_wkg] 9/3/24 Higher Burnup; 9/5/24 NEI Security Plan; 9/11/24 Alternative Security
NEI Security Plan partially closed meeting 9/5/2024
| Document Title: | 20240905 NRC Staff Review of Proposed Changes in NEI 03-12, Revision 8, Security Plan Template No Notes Meeting Slides |
| Document Type: | Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts Slides and Viewgraphs |
| Document Date: | 09/05/2024 |
| 09/05/24 9:00AM - 11:00AM ET | Meeting info The purpose of this meeting is for the NRC staff to provide initial feedback to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding proposed changes in Revision 8 to NEI 03-12, Security Plan Template. [more...] Participation: Partially Closed Teleconference | Teleconference | Jesse Rollins (817) 200-1431 Justin Vazquez (301) 415-0530 |
Security Check - Phone it in - Push for Remote Security - 9/11/2024
| Document Title: | 09/11/2024 Alternative Physical Security Requirements for Advanced Reactors Rulemaking: Public Comment Period |
| Document Type: | Meeting Notice Meeting Agenda |
| Document Date: | 08/27/2024 |
| 09/11/24 1:00PM - 4:00PM ET | Meeting info The purpose of this meeting is to present the published proposed rule alternative physical security requirements for advanced reactors (non-light water reactors and small modular reactors). This meeting will also allow an opportunity for stakeholders to ask clarification questions to help understand the proposed rule and to develop any public comments. [more...] Participation: Information with Q&A Teleconference | Webinar | Dennis Andrukat (301) 415-3561 |
N2
MJK
New York cannot afford nuclear power and must not slow down its Climate Act
https://finance.yahoo.com/news
New York cannot afford nuclear power and must not slow down its Climate Act
Utility Dive· FernandoAH via Getty Images
Raya Salter4 min read
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter.
Raya Salter is the founder of the Energy Justice Law and Policy Center and a member of the New York State Climate Action Council and the New York Public Service Commission Energy Policy Planning Advisory Council.
Last month, a troubling report penned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority acknowledged that New York is not on track to meet the ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in our 2019 Climate Act. If this were not bad enough, influential decision-makers and industry players have been calling for New York to weaken it. They want to expand allowable generation sources beyond renewables, and entertain “low-carbon and carbon-free alternatives,” including nuclear power. On September 4-5, the governor’s administration is hosting a Future Energy and Economy Summit at which two of the five panels featured will be speaking about the future of nuclear energy in New York.
We need to be clear: nuclear power is neither a climate solution nor a clean energy solution. It is an expensive, toxic, and dangerous distraction that will only impede New York's progress toward its climate goals. New York needs look no further than the Vogtle reactors in Georgia or the canceled NuScale reactors in Utah. The Vogtle project took 16 years to complete its first reactor and cost more than twice its initial estimate. Costs for the NuScale project doubled before construction even began; eight years after it was first proposed, the project had neither broken ground nor received a single permit.
Of course, New York has its own nuclear cautionary tale: the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island. Promised as a pathway to energy independence in the ‘70s and ‘80s, Shoreham became a financial disaster. The project's cost soared from an initial $75 million estimate to over $6 billion. Due to local opposition, regulatory challenges and safety concerns, the plant was decommissioned before it could provide any commercial power. Long Island ratepayers are still paying Shoreham’s debt. Shoreham’s story is a stark reminder that nuclear projects often come with insurmountable economic and social costs.
Our Climate Act was hard won and a highly supported piece of legislation that led the nation on climate and environmental justice. Our agencies and regulators must follow, and not erode, its protections for frontline communities. Nuclear does the opposite. New York’s existing reactors, their radioactive waste and waste spills, continue to pose a threat to communities who live where nuclear operations, dumping and transport occur. There is no permanent solution to waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years. Peer-reviewed studies examining these impacts on surrounding communities have identified a number of grave environmental harms and public health risks. Many of these risks disproportionately impact Indigenous communities and other communities of color in the U.S. and worldwide.
Proponents of “advanced” nuclear technologies argue that they offer something new. However, these technologies, including small modular reactors, are based on old concepts that previously failed due to safety, waste management and economic challenges. Claims that these reactors will provide cheaper, safer and faster nuclear energy remain unproven, echoing the same empty promises that led to past failures.
Including nuclear power in New York’s transmission policy planning would also be misguided. Nuclear energy does not align with the goals of a flexible, renewable-driven grid. Relying on nuclear would distract from building infrastructure to support truly renewable sources like wind and solar, which are becoming increasingly cost-effective and reliable. Nuclear power would lock us into a centralized, high-risk generation model that doesn't fit the decentralized nature of modern clean energy systems.
There is a lot of promise for our climate goals despite the gloomy projection. Our state is leading the way in piloting new, clean, efficient and at-scale heating and cooling technologies like utility thermal energy networks. More New Yorkers than ever are interested in and learning about green technologies and the jobs that come with them. We don’t need scenario planning that promises nuclear power on a mythical timeline towards a slower, less ambitious goal. What we need is for New York to meet its climate challenges with urgency and, acting in the public interest, reject false solutions like nuclear power.
Thursday, August 29, 2024
NRC Renews North Anna Operating Licenses for a Second Time
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 24-067 August 28, 2024
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200
NRC Renews North Anna Operating Licenses for a Second Time
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed for a second time the operating licenses of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years.
The North Anna units are pressurized-water reactors located in Louisa County, Virginia, about 40 miles northwest of Richmond, Virginia. Unit 1’s operating license will now expire April 1, 2058, and Unit 2’s will expire on August 21, 2060.
The NRC’s review of the application from Virginia Electric and Power Co., a subsidiary of Dominion Energy, proceeded on two tracks. A safety evaluation report was issued in January 2022, and a final environmental impact statement was issued in July 2024. These documents, as well as other information regarding the North Anna subsequent license renewal application, are available on the NRCwebsite.
The NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board terminated the adjudicatory proceeding regarding the application in July 2024, concluding that no contested matters remained before it for resolution. The Board’s decision has been appealed to the Commission. NRC regulations allow the licenses to be issued while an appeal is pending. The Commission retains the ability to act on the appeal and, as needed, direct additional staff action on the licenses.
With the renewal of the North Anna licenses, eight commercial nuclear power reactors have received subsequent renewed licenses (authorizing operations from 60 to 80 years). Seven applications for subsequent license renewal are currently under review.
TMI-2 SOLUTIONS, LLC, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000320/2024001 and 05000320/2024002
TMI-2 SOLUTIONS, LLC, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000320/2024001 and 05000320/2024002
ADAMS ACCESSION NO. ML24218A186
Wednesday, August 28, 2024
NRC Proposes $9,000 Civil Penalty Against Alliance Healthcare Services
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: III-24-025 August 27, 2024
Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663
NRC Proposes $9,000 Civil Penalty Against Alliance Healthcare Services
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $9,000 fine to Alliance Healthcare Services, in Irvine, California, for violating requirements associated with the control of NRC- regulated material.
The violation involved the failure to maintain security and control of two germanium-68 sealed sources from a mobile medical unit at a repair facility in August 2023, resulting in the loss of both sources. The sources remain missing; however, the potential impact to the public remains low. Ge-68 is used with nuclear imaging equipment for diagnostics applications.
The NRC was notified of the event and conducted an inspection from August 2023 to April 2024. Details of the inspections and the proposed violation were documented in a May report. Alliance responded to the violation, documenting their corrective actions and actions taken to prevent a recurrence. The NRC concluded that the company’s information and actions in response to the violation is adequate and compliance with NRC requirements has been addressed.
The company has 30 days to pay the proposed penalty, contest the penalty in writing, or request alternative dispute resolution with the NRC to resolve this issue.
Saturday, August 24, 2024
As dangerous heat grips Texas, solar power and batteries keep the electric grid humming along | State | dentonrc.com
As dangerous heat grips Texas, solar power and batteries keep the electric grid humming along
By Mose Buchele KUT 90.5 Updated
Batteries that store solar energy have boosted the Texas power grid this summer.
Michael Minasi/KUT News
With temperatures climbing over 100 in much of the state, the Texas electric grid set an all-time record for energy demand Tuesday.
Despite the heat wave, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas has yet to ask people to conserve electricity. That’s a big change from 2023, when extreme weather and fear of low power reserves prompted ERCOT to issue 11 requests for conservation through the year.
Grid operators and energy experts are pointing to the rapid growth of solar power and grid-scale batteries as key reasons why residents haven’t been asked to conserve this month.
“We’ve seen significant additions of energy storage resources, solar resources and wind resources, with a few additions also on the gas side,” Pablo Vegas, CEO of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, said at an ERCOT board meeting Tuesday. “All of that has helped to contribute to less scarcity conditions.”
In fact, the growth of some of those energy sources has been downright record-breaking.
As the sun and heat bore down, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday brought the top three days for solar power production in the history of the state grid, according to the website Gridstatus.io, which tracks the performance of regional electricity transmission systems.
On Sunday, the top day for solar production, Texas solar farms produced 20,832 megawatts of power. It’s worth noting that this number does not include energy produced by rooftop panels on homes and businesses.
According to ERCOT, 1 megawatt is enough to power about 250 homes at times of peak demand.
Texas also set new records Monday and Tuesday for the amount of power provided by big utility-scale batteries, something that could have made the difference between a normal day and a grid emergency.
“The previous storage record was shattered by 25%,” Doug Lewin, author of The Texas Energy and Power Newsletter, tweeted. We “almost certainly would have been rolling outages without it.”
The reason for the rapid uptick in solar and battery power on the state grid is pretty simple.
Energy demand has grown rapidly in Texas over the last few years, and frequent moments of energy scarcity have presented a business opportunity for solar farms and battery storage facilities that can quickly set up shop to fill the need.
Hot, sunny days — the very conditions that bring higher energy use — are also the conditions that produce solar power. That solar energy also can be used to fill large batteries that discharge power back to the grid when the sun sets over solar farms, but air conditioners are still running full blast.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Vegas pointed to other factors that have worked in the grid’s favor recently. Strong winds in the evening have brought wind power online as the sun goes down, and natural gas power plants have not suffered major breakdowns that could throw the grid into scarcity conditions.
Holtec International, has filed an appeal seeking to discharge radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay
Holtec to DEP: State has no authority to ban radioactive water discharge into Cape Cod Bay
The company that owns the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Holtec International, has filed an appeal seeking to discharge radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay.
Last month, the state denied Holtec a permit to release nearly 1 million gallons of water from the nuclear reactor system at Pilgrim as part of the plant decommissioning.
Holtec’s appeal hinges on two main ideas: one, that discharge of water from Pilgrim is grandfathered under state law; and two, that federal law preempts state decisions on nuclear waste.
“The appeal explains that our permit was granted prior to the Ocean Sanctuaries Act legislation, which grandfathered these types of liquid discharges,” Holtec spokesman Patrick O’Brien said.
The company argues that Massachusetts cannot completely bar the release of radioactive material because that authority lies with the federal government.
Boston attorney Jed Nosal filed the appeal, dated Aug. 16, with the state’s Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution on behalf of a Holtec subsidiary, Holtec Decommissioning International, which is dismantling Pilgrim and cleaning up the Plymouth property for future re-use.
Appeals can take a year or more; during that time, the water will continue to evaporate into the outdoor air.
Andrew Gottlieb, executive director of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, said that’s exactly what Holtec wants.
“They're using the appeal to buy themselves time,” he said. “And what they buy themselves, with time, is the ability to continue to induce evaporation of the wastewater, so that ultimately it's gone, at minimal cost to them.”
Some local activists want Holtec to truck the water to a licensed disposal facility out of state.
The company says all options are on the table, but it continues to pursue discharge of the water into Cape Cod Bay.
“I think they've made the determination that the cost of lawyers is less than the cost of transport,” Gottlieb said. “And so they'll litigate it until they evaporate it, and then they'll be done.”
He said a delay also allows the decommissioning trust fund to increase in value, so Holtec could make more profit on the work.
Responding by email to the allegation that Holtec is trying to run out the clock, O’Brien said the company is following the regulatory process.
“We do not know the period of time the appeal [may] take but total evaporation of the water at Pilgrim would take a number of years and continues to occur naturally as it has since the plant was commissioned,” O’Brien wrote.
The water is filtered to reduce contamination, but not everything can be removed.
The appeals office within the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection — the same agency that denied the permit — is the final venue for administrative appeal before the matter could go to court.
Tuesday, August 20, 2024
NRC Begins Special Inspection at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: III-24-023 August 19, 2024
Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663
NRC Begins Special Inspection at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a special inspection at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant to investigate the circumstances surrounding multiple diesel generator failures.
The NRC determined a special inspection is necessary to evaluate the reliability of diesel generators after they failed four times in two years. Emergency diesel generators are important because they provide backup power to safety equipment when power from the electrical grid is not available.
Following each emergency diesel generator failure, NRC inspectors verified that the plant performed prompt repairs. D.C. Cook continues to operate safely. The three-person special inspection team will identify the failure timelines; review the plant’s troubleshooting and corrective actions; assess maintenance practices; and evaluate the plant’s ability to effectively identify and resolve issues of concern. The team has expertise in electrical and mechanical engineering and plant systems.
Upon completion of the special inspection, NRC inspectors will document their findings in a publicly available inspection report, which will be distributed electronically to listserv subscribers and available on the NRC website.
The plant, located in Bridgman, Michigan, is operated by Indiana Michigan Power.
Saturday, August 17, 2024
Finland's Fortum says new nuclear not feasible at current prices
Finland's Fortum says new nuclear not feasible at current prices
Anne Kauranen
Fortum headquarters in Espoo, Finland
By Anne Kauranen
By Anne Kauranen
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Fortum doesn't believe investing in new nuclear generation capacity is feasible at current low Nordic power prices, its chief executive said on Thursday, after the Finnish utility surprised markets with better than expected second quarter results.
Fortum is among companies eyeing possible deals from the Swedish government's goal to build 2,500 MW of new nuclear power by 2035 - the equivalent of two new reactors - and 10 new reactors a decade later to help tackle climate change.
On Monday, a commission appointed by the Swedish government put a price tag of around 400 billion crowns ($38 billion) on the new nuclear plans and proposed a financing and risk-sharing model, which would include state loans, a price hedging agreement and a mechanism to share risk and gains.
Sweden and Finland are both considering introducing new nuclear power to serve as a steady base load for intermittent renewables.
Fortum's Chief Executive Markus Rauramo welcomed the Swedish government's report but said more details were needed before any investments could go forward.
"With today's market prices, new nuclear is not feasible," he told a conference call after the company's quarterly results on Thursday.
Shares in Fortum were up 1.2% in afternoon trade after the company reported a 233 million euro ($256.51 million) operating profit for the April to June period.
That was down from 262 million a year earlier, but beat a forecast of 200 million euros in a company-provided poll as higher hydro volumes and the divestment of Fortum's Indian solar portfolio helped offset a decline in revenue from its power generation unit due to a drop in spot prices.
"The main reason for the lower Generation result was the lower achieved power price, but this was partly offset by higher hydro volumes and improved results in the renewables and decarbonisation businesses," Rauramo said in a statement.
Benchmark Nordic power prices have fallen this year due in part to a surge in wind and solar power output. Spot prices have averaged 42.01 euros/MWh this year, down from 56.44 euros/MWh in 2023 and 135.86 euros/MWh during the energy crisis in 2022.
Fortum also said it was on track with its goal to lower its recurring fixed costs by 100 million euros by the end of 2025, expecting to reach 50 million euros in cost reductions by the end of this year.
Its shares have gained 10% this year.
(Reporting by Anne Kauranen in Helsinki and Louise Breusch Rasmussen in Copenhagen; Additional reporting by Nora Buli; Editing by Terje Solsvik and Susan Fenton)
The Curious Endurance of Atoms for Peace
The Curious Endurance of Atoms for Peace
Peaceful nuclear power was a political gambit from the start. Why does it still continue?
Henry Sokolski | Aug 14, 2024
The Atoms For Peace bus, a mobile exhibit about nuclear power operated for a time by the Atomic Energy Commission. (Corbis via Getty Images.)
Seventy-one years ago, while President Eisenhower was vacationing in Colorado, the Soviets tested their first thermonuclear device. It failed as a true fusion weapon, but the 400 kilotons of energy it released (roughly 25 times more than was released over Hiroshima) rattled Washington. More important, it spurred the formulation of one of America’s most curious endeavors: Atoms for Peace and its policy that spread dangerous nuclear technology world-wide.
This program’s continued endurance is difficult to understand. Its historical genesis, though, is clear enough. Early in 1953, J. Robert Oppenheimer briefed Eisenhower on the findings of a classified nuclear disarmament advisory panel Truman had asked Oppenheimer to chair. The panel’s findings were grim: Within a few short years, the Soviets would have enough nuclear weapons to knock out one hundred of America’s largest cities in a surprise attack. The United States might retaliate by destroying Moscow but America itself would be in ruins. The bottom line: Unless Russia capped its nuclear buildup, America and Russia would be able to land deadly strikes against one another but be unable to survive or thrive. Compounding the problem was that Moscow might not understand this. Oppenheimer urged Eisenhower to clarify the threat publicly.
What ensued was a close-hold assignment—“Operation Candor”—a speechwriting project, chaired by psychological policy advisor C.D. Jackson to produce the seemingly impossible: a presidential address that would explain the emerging nuclear threat without frightening America. Months of feckless drafting efforts followed. Then, on August 12, 1953, the Russians detonated Joe-4, a massive weapon that brought the “critical date”—when Russia might knock out the United States—even closer.
The test made headline news. It also catalyzed an idea Eisenhower had already been mulling to pit the good atom of nuclear power against the evil atom of war. Why not ask the Russians to make joint fissile material contributions with the United States to fuel peaceful nuclear power projects globally. The idea here would be to goad Moscow into contributing so much of its military fissile material to an international atomic bank for civilian projects so as to keep it from ever acquiring a nuclear arsenal large enough to knock out America. Such a program, Eisenhower explained, might achieve the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament “by the back door”—i.e. without the intrusive on-site inspections that the Soviets had already rejected.
Eisenhower liked his idea. Nuclear experts, though, were skeptical. Lewis Strauss, Eisenhower’s top nuclear official, doubted the proposed fissile contributions would ever be large enough to matter. J. Robert Oppenheimer also was doubtful, dismissing the program’s connection to disarmament as sentimental and illusory.
Over time, the truth turned out to be much harsher. No joint U.S.-Soviet fissile contributions were ever made. Instead, Soviet and American nuclear weapons deployments ramped up exponentially. Worse, countries piggybacked off of the “peaceful” nuclear projects the program promoted to create nuclear weapons efforts of their own. France, Russia, the UK, and India (a major beneficiary of the Atoms for Peace program) used their “peaceful,” dual-use nuclear power plants to make bombs. South Africa, Iraq, Sweden, Italy, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil and Argentina all attempted to do so. Today, experts fear China, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, and Japan might do the same.
Have those unforeseen consequences put an end to Eisenhower’s fanciful program? No. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which the Atoms for Peace program helped create, actually built a version of Eisenhower’s proposed fissile bank in Kazakhstan to assure nuclear fuel supplies to countries hungering after nuclear fuel.
Then there is the U.S.-Russian “megatons to megawatts” nuclear fuel downblending program, launched in 1993. It converted 500 tons of weapons-grade Russian uranium to low enriched uranium to fuel U.S. power reactors. These numbers are impressive but after twenty years of operation, the program failed to limit Russia’s or China’s continued nuclear ramp-up. Nonetheless, the megawatts program, like the Kazakhstan fissile bank, is still cast as a practical option to promote nuclear weapons restraint.
Why is unclear.
Even more curious is the persistent popularity of Atoms for Peace’s promotion of nuclear power. In 1954, Eisenhower’s Atomic Energy Commission chairman insisted nuclear electricity would be “too cheap to meter.” The prospect of limitless, “free” electricity continues to mesmerize governments and the public. Yet, after decades of massive government subsidies, nuclear power still only constitutes 10 percent of the world’s electrical generation and this percentage is expected to plateau or decline by 2050. As for its cost, nuclear reactors—small, large, modular or not—are now the most expensive way to generate electricity.
Additional problems have emerged. In the Middle East, Israel, Iraq, Iran, and the United States have all targeted nuclear reactors as part of their military operations on more than a dozen occasions. Since 2022, Putin has attacked Ukraine’s research and power reactors repeatedly. Meanwhile, Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, and Israel have all threatened to target their neighbors’ nuclear plants. If they do, the environmental, military, and diplomatic effects of a major radiological release from nuclear plants in war zones could be huge.
Undeterred, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Poland, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea all want to build and operate additional nuclear power plants. They insist nuclear power is necessary to bolster their energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. None, however, has clarified how they might prevent these plants from being seized militarily or becoming targets.
What explains this?
One possibility is inertia. For decades, governments have invested significant capital into civilian nuclear projects, creating a multitude of vested interests eager to keep the money flowing. Electrical utility systems in many countries are owned and operated by national authorities that can ignore or muffle negative market signals. In the United States, many utilities’ spending on expensive nuclear construction projects are rewarded with higher utility rates, whether the project is the best economical choice or not. Once a major reactor project runs over-budget in regulated jurisdictions, these costs are not necessarily “prohibitive” as long as the project enjoys political support.
What, though, explains such backing? Frequently, contractors and public officials warn against “losing” the costs already sunk in an expensive nuclear project as a way of justifying the completion of plants that are decades behind schedule and billions over budget. This, however, fails to explain why states launch such projects even when they’ve been flagged as being financially dubious from the outset.
A deeper set of explanations is needed.
A worrisome possibility is that countries lacking nuclear arms view building and operating reactors as an amiable way to develop a nuclear weapons option. “Peaceful” nuclear plants, after all, can serve as bomb starter kits. This certainly explains Saddam Hussein’s construction of Osirak and its supporting facilities, as well as Syria’s construction of its reactor. It also explains Sweden’s original heavy water reactor project, Israel’s construction of Dimona, and Iran’s extensive nuclear activities. Taiwan’s and South Korea’s early nuclear weapons ambitions, as well as those of Argentina, France, Italy, Algeria, Brazil, India, Pakistan, and South Africa were also all fueled by first standing up a “peaceful” nuclear reactor. Exploiting civilian nuclear projects to develop bomb options might soon contribute to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt’s nuclear programs.
The nuclear weapons potential of nuclear plants also produces a halo effect for small and large reactor sales to medium and developing nations. China and Russia, on the one hand, and the United States, South Korea, and France, on the other, are now competing for nuclear power markets in Eastern Europe, South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. For nuclear suppliers, securing nuclear deals in these regions is not only about establishing or maintaining a geopolitical-economic foothold, but about sustaining their own economically-fragile domestic nuclear vendors.
Meanwhile, most nuclear client states find the energy security rationale for nuclear power appealing—so much so that they are willing to commit to projects that put them into serious debt. They also give lip service to limiting greenhouse gas emissions, even though nuclear power’s current contribution to countering climate change is marginal and a distraction from more viable renewable energy solutions.
All these claims skim over an underlying explanation—that promoting “peaceful” nuclear power never was or is much of an end in itself, but instead is only sustainable as a support to some grander goal. When Eisenhower first proposed Atoms for Peace, his main objective was to somehow reduce the public’s fear of nuclear war by presenting as an alternative a peaceful, prosperous nuclear future. Eisenhower proposed nuclear power’s development even though he and his advisors suspected nuclear energy might not be economically viable for a decade or more.
This did not matter. Eisenhower wanted to have a more positive vision guide his policies than the impending threat of a Russian nuclear knock out blow. He proposed Atoms for Peace to offer hope against this fear.
Was there ever a real, clear fix against the threat of nuclear war? Did the Atoms for Peace program address the most likely nuclear threat that could defeat the United States? Was the program’s hope of drawing down stockpiles and production of nuclear fissile material all that sound? No.
Again, it did not matter. America and the world needed to believe that the most powerful nuclear-armed state—the United States—had both a clear desire and a plan to skirt Armageddon. By fully committing to an ambitious (albeit questionable) program of peaceful nuclear development, Eisenhower convinced the world and himself just how dedicated he and America were to security and economic development. It helped that, early on, few had a clear idea of what nuclear deterrence or developing nuclear power actually required.
In subsequent decades, America’s organizing principles changed but the use of peaceful nuclear energy to achieve them persisted. In the 1960s, the Great Society’ commitment to eliminating poverty and making the “deserts bloom” embraced the Atomic Energy Commission’s fantastic vision of bringing a thousand reactors (both fast and thermal) online by the year 2000.
Today, nuclear power boosters pitch nuclear power in an effort to help America become energy-independent. They insist net zero is impossible without nuclear energy. As such, the uncertain costs of small, advanced modular reactors and the poor financial performance of the large ones are no longer relevant: Achieving energy security and stopping global warming are “existential” imperatives whose ultimate value cannot be fully internalized in any compelling, quantitative fashion. When it comes to saving America and the world, money no longer is much of an object. Nor are the technical, safety, environmental and military concerns these projects raise.
What might change this?
One possibility is the emergence of economically-distributed electrical supply systems. The further development of affordable electrical storage batteries, improved switching and monitoring technologies, and advanced distribution and transmission systems should make this possible. Such systems might even render nuclear or non-nuclear baseload generators unnecessary. The growing vulnerability of electrical supply systems and of nuclear plants to cyber and physical attacks might catalyze these developments. On the other hand, vested industry interests and local regulatory and bureaucratic inertia could easily slow them.
Another possibility is that a major reactor accident or attack on a nuclear plant could produce a major radiological release that might catalyze support for developing safer, cheaper, non-nuclear power alternatives.
A similar but more worrisome negative incentive might happen if “peaceful” nuclear plants and know-how are ever exploited to make bombs. If states made weapons from such plants and fired them, it would cast a pall over “peaceful” nuclear energy. It also would increase demand for tougher nuclear controls, which could detect possible military nuclear diversions early enough to prevent bombs from being built. Such tighter controls, in turn, would necessarily restrict nuclear fuel making and the operation of the most proliferation-prone of reactor types.
Unfortunately, the last half century suggests that demand for such exacting inspections is hardly high. However, it can be generated. In 1974, India’s “peaceful” nuclear test, which used plutonium produced in a “peaceful” nuclear reactor, prompted a serious tightening of the nuclear rules. Perhaps another “peaceful” test by another non-weapons state might result in the same consequences. Until then, though, support for Atoms for Peace and its mixed results are likely to persist.
Henry Sokolski is Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and the author of Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future. He served as Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy in the office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the George H.W. Bush Administration.
About 25 tons of radioactive water have leaked within the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Radioactive water leaks reported at Japan's crippled Fukushima power plant
TOKYO, Aug. 15 (Xinhua) -- About 25 tons of radioactive water have leaked within the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the plant's operator has reported, a week after the latest round of ocean discharge started.
The nuclear-contaminated water, which leaked from a surge tank connected to the Unit 2 reactor building, was meant to be contained in a tank receiving overflow from the spent nuclear fuel pool, according to Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).
Accumulating on the first basement level of the reactor building, the leaked water led to a rise in the level of contaminated water already present in the area, TEPCO introduced on Tuesday, confirming that the contaminated water had not escaped outside the reactor building.
The leak was first identified last Friday, when a decrease in the water level of the surge tank was detected, according to TEPCO, which upon further investigation discovered water flowing into a drain in a room on the third floor of the reactor building.
The company plans to use a remotely operated robot to measure radiation levels in the room by Friday and further pinpoint the exact location and cause of the leak. The cooling pump for the pool has been temporarily shut down as part of the investigation.
Hit by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and an ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear plant suffered core meltdowns that released radiation, resulting in a level-7 nuclear accident, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.
The plant has been generating a massive amount of water tainted with radioactive substances from cooling down nuclear fuel in reactor buildings. The contaminated water is now being stored in tanks at the nuclear plant.
Despite furious opposition both at home and abroad, the ocean discharge of the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water began in August 2023, and the eighth round of ocean discharge started last week.
In fiscal 2024, TEPCO plans to discharge a total of 54,600 tons of the contaminated water in seven rounds, which contains approximately 14 trillion becquerels of tritium.
Amid raging credibility and safety concerns among the Japanese public following a series of accidents at the crippled plant, TEPCO and the Japanese government have been frequently challenged for mishandling the contaminated water.
Thursday, August 15, 2024
US wind and solar on track to overtake coal this year
US wind and solar on track to overtake coal this year
By Benjamin Storrow | 08/13/2024 06:33 AM EDT
The two renewable resources together have produced more power than coal through July — a first for the United States.
Wind and solar generated more power than coal through the first seven months of the year, federal data shows, in a first for renewable resources.
The milestone had been long expected due to a steady stream of coal plant retirements and the rapid growth of wind and solar. Last year, wind and solar outpaced coal through May before the fossil fuel eventually overtook the pair when power demand surged in the summer.
But the most recent statistics showed why wind and solar are on track in 2024 to exceed coal generation for an entire calendar year — with the renewable resources maintaining their lead through the heat of July. Coal generation usually declines in the spring months, due to falling power demand and seasonal plant maintenance, and picks up when electricity demand rises in the summer.
Renewables’ growth has been driven by a surge in solar production over the last year. The 118 terawatt-hours generated by utility-scale solar facilities through the end of July represented a 36 percent increase from the same time period last year, according to preliminary U.S. Energy Information Administration figures. Wind production was 275 TWh, up 8 percent over 2023 levels. Renewables’ combined production of 393 TWh outpaced coal generation of 388 TWh.
“I think it is an important milestone,” said Ric O’Connell, who leads GridLab, a clean electricity consulting firm. “I think you’re seeing a solar surge and a coal decline and hence the lines are crossing.”
EIA previously reported that renewable generation eclipsed coal in 2020 and 2022 and then repeated the feat in 2023. But those figures notably included other resources such as hydropower. Now wind and solar are posed to overtake coal on their own. The pair accounted for 16 percent of U.S. power generation through July, slightly more than coal’s share of the power generation market.
The development comes at a time when the reliability of the electric grid is in the spotlight amid increasing power demand due to the growth of artificial intelligence, data centers, and more frequent and severe heat waves — which drive up air conditioning use. EIA statistics show electricity demand through the first seven months of the year was up 4 percent to 2,436 TWh through the end of July.
The growth in demand has been a boon for power generators. Nuclear generation was 459 TWh through July, a 3 percent increase helped by two new reactors in Georgia coming online within the last year. Hydro was up a slight 1 percent to 159 TWh. Gas has been particularly important for supplying additional demand, increasing 5 percent over 2023 levels to 987 TWh.
Mark Repsher, an analyst who tracks the power industry at PA Consulting Group, said the figures point to larger challenges facing the power grid. Additional power plants that can be turned on at the flip of a switch will be needed to meet demand, he said. The question is whether it will come from natural gas or zero-carbon resources, such as nuclear or geothermal.
“Renewables will continue to be a huge part of the industry, but I think there will be an inflection point where the incremental value of an additional megawatt-hour from renewables will be less than some other alternatives,” he said.
Others were less sure. The rapid growth of wind, solar and batteries in Texas shows that renewables can be built quickly and stabilize the electric grid, said O’Connell. The state is “sailing through a crazy summer” thanks to record wind, solar and battery output, he said.
Coal may yet hold off wind and solar with a strong five months to close 2024. But renewables are likely to overtake the former king of the power sector sooner rather than later.
The last coal plant built in the continental United States came online in 2013. American coal capacity then declined 38 percent over the following decade.
Renewables, meanwhile, are booming. The U.S. installed almost 12 gigawatts of new solar capacity through June, meaning 2024 already ranks as the third best year for U.S. solar installations with six more months to go. Another 25 GW is planned to come online this year, according to EIA. Wind added 2.5 GW through June and is expected to install another 4.5 GW by the end of the year.
One piece of positive news for the coal industry is that plant retirements are on track to hit their lowest level in 13 years. EIA projects 3.2 GW of coal capacity will close this year, the lowest annual retirement figure since 2011 and down from the 9.5 GW of coal capacity shut down last year.
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Integrated Inspection Report 05000277/2024002 and 05000278/2024002
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Integrated Inspection Report 05000277/2024002 and 05000278/2024002
ADAMS Accession No. ML24227A549
AI game changer hits the grid By Peter Behr | 08/13/2024 06:44 AM EDT
AI game changer hits the grid
By Peter Behr | 08/13/2024 06:44 AM EDT
Northern Virginia is ground zero for digital data centers as Dominion Electric is squeezing all it can from its high-voltage lines.
LOUDOUN COUNTY, Virginia — High up along a string of transmission towers leading into northern Virginia’s immense cluster of digital data centers, line crews are doing one of the scariest jobs in the energy world.
Specially trained technicians have been unhooking live, uninsulated high-voltage lines that are crackling with 230,000 deadly volts of electricity. They’re replacing them with advanced cables that boost power delivery by 50 percent.
You wouldn’t do it this way unless you had to, says Matthew Gardner, vice president for transmission for Dominion Electric, the state’s largest utility, which owns and operates the lines.
Dominion says it has to.
Here, on the outskirts of Dulles International Airport, the largest collection of data centers in the United States is drawing power from Dominion’s lines. The eruption of generative artificial intelligence traffic and expectations for more are sending electricity use soaring.
Dominion chose the rare “hot line” replacement. It simply couldn’t shut down existing power lines that feed 24/7 demand for power from the growing hub of data centers. “It’s absolutely essential that these projects are completed to serve the future growth that’s coming our way,” Gardner said in an interview.
It took Dominion 115 years from its founding to reach its current level of power delivery. “The pace of growth is so rapid, driven by data centers, that we’re on pace to double our system load in the next 15 years,” Gardner said.
Here and at other data center clusters around the U.S., a grid industry struggling with a historic shift from fossil fuel generation to renewable energy is suddenly facing predictions of unprecedented demand because of this next phase of America’s digital economy, with no overall game plan to go on.
At the moment, the U.S. grid industry has slipped well off pace to meet President Joe Biden’s zero-carbon generation goals, required to lessen the risk of catastrophic climate events. The 2024 presidential race stands as a referendum on climate policy, given the scale of federal spending on clean energy under Biden. The AI-driven need for energy poses a new barrier to cutting carbon emissions if utilities rely primarily on gas- and coal-fired generation to meet the demand, according to recent studies.
Arshad Mansoor, chief executive of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), said utilities, grid planners, data center operators and their customers should be working together to develop clean energy.
In a report to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm’s energy advisory board, EPRI urged the nation to “transition to carbon-free electricity sources for data center operations and low carbon technologies for backup power.”
Data center vs. climate change?
Meeting power needs without losing the fight against global warming has suddenly changed the planning and politics for the U.S grid.
To illustrate digital technology’s ravenous appetite for power, EPRI noted that simple searches today on a laptop browser consume about one-third of a watt of electricity. But advanced AI technology and high-powered computing are training software algorithms to create answers from vast data files, with skyrocketing increases in power needs.
A complex generative AI question over ChatGPT today would require 3 watts, 10 times the simple search amount, EPRI’s report concluded. A Google search with similar generative AI capability could require 9 watts, it added.
Depending on how fast AI expands, data center electricity demands could mushroom from about 4 percent of U.S. grid output to over 9 percent in just six years, EPRI said.
“Nobody has a good understanding of how generative AI will impact every aspect of the society,” Mansoor said in an interview. “And so anything we say now, most likely will be wrong in six months,” he added.
Energy & Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco energy research firm, gathered 13 analyses of how much electricity output may have to grow to keep up with data center expansion, under different assumptions.
The projections range from 20,000 megawatts to 100,000 MW of new capacity by 2030. There are plenty of unknowns, including just how “smart” generative AI becomes, how much efficiency can be built into AI chips and whether a strained electric grid can actually deliver the power data centers require.
“There’s still a ton of uncertainty,” particularly concerning the highest forecasts, said E3 senior partner Kushal Patel, a report co-author. “It’s probably not going to be more certain in the future,” he added.
If some utilities wind up overbuilding infrastructure to serve data centers, consumers could be stuck with higher costs, warned Moody’s Investors Service in a recent research report.
The 100,000 MW figure is roughly comparable to duplicating the generation capacity of the entire 94 U.S. nuclear reactors in six years.
While the impact is unmeasured, growth is coming because the potential profits from AI applications has created a sprint for the lead among hyperscale internet cloud infrastructure companies, led by Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Apple and TikTok, said Phill Lawson-Shanks, chief innovation officer at Aligned Data Centers, a Texas-based data center builder.
“I hesitate to use that term, but there’s almost an arms race,” he said.
“They are saying, ‘OK, I have no idea how much, but I know I need power,’” EPRI’s Mansoor said. “’I need to build as much as I can.’”
The cost of new power
E3 pointed to the health care industry to describe the potential scale of artificial intelligence power demand.
There are roughly 32,000 radiologists in the U.S. with a midrange annual wage of $354,000, the firm estimated. If AI could learn to accurately analyze X-ray, ultrasound and MRI images, and replace just 10 percent of those radiologists, the revenue from that substitution could be more than $1 billion a year, according to E3 researchers.
That would pay for a lot of energy-hungry supercomputers.
With long lead times to connect wind and solar to the power grid and a split between the two political parties on federal transmission policy, the quickest source of new power for data centers is from gas-fired generation, E3 noted.
Officials in North Dakota see prospects for a booming data center business — based on discussions with major technology companies — as an opportunity to use some of the natural gas coming off the region’s prolific oil fields. North Dakota Department of Commerce Commissioner Josh Teigen says state officials are looking for ways to develop more gas-fired generation to power data centers and sell surplus electricity to the grid.
Grid operators and utilities are postponing some fossil fuel plant retirements citing threats to electricity reliability. “These rollbacks clash with the customers’ environmental goals and investments, and they threaten state and utility emission reduction targets,” E3 analysts said.
According to E3, delaying the retirement of a typical 1,000-MW coal power plant for a single year, for example, puts 3.8 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That would offset the carbon-saving effects of 3,000 MW of utility-scale solar installations, E3 calculated.
What can be done?
As an immediate step, utilities need to make greater use of advanced transmission cables and “grid enhancing technologies” like dynamic line rating sensors that tell grid operators when more power can be moved without overheating cables, Gardner said.
EPRI analysts suggested data center operators could sync AI operations to times of the day or night when renewable power is most plentiful. Or large AI customers could help finance pilot installations of advanced 24/7 carbon-free power sources.
At its July 30 meeting, the advisory board to the secretary of Energy urged utilities, regulators, and data center users and builders to work together to speed up development of wind, solar and batteries. Longer-term technologies include small modular reactors (SMRs), long-term grid batteries, hydrogen hubs, fuel cells and underground storage of fossil plant carbon emissions.
Andy Bochman, senior grid strategist for the Idaho National Laboratory, emphasized small nuclear reactors.
“Coal and gas plants can then be replaced by similar-sized SMR installations on a one-to-one basis,” Bochman said. “This must be complemented by expanding wind and solar and storage on microgrids as quickly as possible.”
“As an industry, we will be forced to look at self-generation until the grid can catch up,” said Lawton-Shanks of Aligned Data Centers.
The hyperscale operators have huge financial resources, EPRI’s Mansoor said. They can partner with utilities to build pilot generation plants at data centers that could remove some of the financial risk of backing emerging technology like hydrogen or carbon capture.
“We can have 10 SMRs and 10 carbon capture and storage projects working by 2030,” Mansoor said.
There could be 10 carbon capture and storage installations at natural gas and coal plants, he continued.
Will the big data center users invest? “They’re talking,” Mansoor said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
